Snead Ex Rel. C.S. v. District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that case was not complex because “[t]here was no formal discovery, no lengthy argument, limited motion practice, and a single informal hearing”
• suggesting that the presence of formal discovery, multiple hearings, and extensive motions practice makes a case complex
• noting that courts in this District have interpreted Circuit law “as strongly suggesting that IDEA matters are infrequently comparable to complex federal litigation, and therefore, full [Matrix] rates should not be awarded in such cases”
• collecting an “overwhelming number” cases finding 75% of prior USAO Matrix to approximate the prevailing rate for IDEA administrative proceedings
• “Laffey should not be the default rate for fees awarded pursuant to [the] IDEA.”
• involving an “unremarkable IDEA administrative representation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).